In defense of the sanctimonious women's studies set || First feminist blog on the internet

Twenty Questions — The Baby Killer Edition

Pollitt has it right:

As the nation passes the thirty-third anniversary of Roe, it is hard to find anyone who will say a good word in public for abortion rights, let alone for abortion itself. Abortion has become a bit like flag-burning–something that offends all right-thinking people but needs to be legal for reasons of abstract principle (“choice”). Unwanted pregnancy has become like, I don’t know, smoking crack: the mark of a weak, undisciplined person of the lower orders.

Somewhere (probably as the Dems lost control of the federal government), abortion became the public policy no-no — we’ll keep it in the books on principle, just as long as nobody actually has to exercise that right. Meanwhile, the Santorum wing of the Republican party sets the rules of the game.

Molly set up a questionairre for the pro-life folks out there and has yet to have any of them answered by anyone who calls themselves “pro-life.” Consider this your call to duty.

Since many of the people commenting on that other post are referring to “murder” in one form or another, here are some questions for those of you who claim to believe that abortion is murder, and that all women who receive them are “murdering their babies.”

1) Should women who abort get life sentences in prison and/or the death penalty?
2) If a woman’s husband knows she is aborting, should he be charged as an accessory to murder?
3) How about her friends who know?
4) Should abortion doctors receive life sentences in prison and/or the death penalty?
5) If a woman smokes during her pregnancy and the fetus dies as a result, should she be charged with murder?
6) If her husband knew she was a smoker and could kill the fetus, is he criminally negligent?
7) If a woman eats unhealthily during pregnancy and the fetus dies, should she be charged with negligent homicide?
8) If the husband knew, should he, too, be charged?
9) If a woman has a serious medical condition that would almost always lead to the death of a fetus, but gets pregnant anyway, should she be criminally liable if the fetus dies?
10) If her husband knew of this condition, should he, too, be criminally liable?
11) If a company manufactures a product which lights a fire in a fertility clinic, destroying 1500 frozen embryos, should they be liable for mass murder?
12) If an electric company has a power failure which cuts power to a fertility clinic, thawing embryos and rendering them unusable, should they be liable for mass murder?
13) If a pregnant woman reports to her doctor that she is smoking during her pregnancy, should her doctor be mandated to report it to the appropriate agency for dealing with child abuse?
14) If a woman has cancer and her chemotherapy kills a fetus, should she be given a life sentence and/or sentenced to die?
15) If her doctor was aware of her pregnancy, should he be charged as an accessory to murder?
16) Should children who are disabled be allowed to sue a parent for any negligent conduct during pregnancy that may have caused their disability — for instance, smoking or consuming alcoholic beverages?
17) Should a person with 15 frozen embryos in storage be required to carry each embryo as soon as possible?
18) If I had 15 embryos in storage, should I be able to claim them as dependents on my tax paperwork?
19) If a government agency determined that a woman was being neglectful to her fetus during her pregnancy, should she be forced by the Department of Children and Families to care for the child and/or have it forcefully removed?
20) Should one in three American women be imprisoned or sentenced to death?

Punishing doctors is far easier than stepping into this rhetorical and legal quagmire. If abortion is truly murder, women and their accomplices should also be charged. Consistency, people — words have consequences.

While you’re at it, Amanda details how our government continues to remind us that mandatory pregnancy really is mandatory by moving to take away insurance coverage of preventative cancer testing and contraception.


18 thoughts on Twenty Questions — The Baby Killer Edition

  1. Consistency, people — words have consequences.

    Exactly! If I was a pro-life advocate this is how I would have to answer the questions:

    1-4: Yes
    5-8: Tenuous causation in the questions, but if cause can be attributed then a charge like manslaughter is appropriate.
    9 -10: Hard to prove, but if there is foreknowledge about the certain, rather than simply likely, outcome, then this would have to be a crime.
    11-12: Product liability shouldn’t have infinite reach. No charges.
    13: Need to prove that smoking harms the fetus.
    14-15: No crime here. People are allowed to save themselves instead of choosing to save another, even if by doing so the other perishes.
    16: Yes
    17: No, they’re alive and that’s all that matters.
    18: Yes.
    19: Sure, but I’d be amazed if a government agency can actually investigate and adjudicate in a timely manner.
    20: Yes.

  2. 17: No, they’re alive and that’s all that matters.

    Actually, given the low success rate of implantation, one could argue that she shouldn’t be allowed to carry any of them ever because that would be endangerment of a child.

  3. I can hardly believe that no one has elected to respond to such a compilation of strawmen. (I’m just shocked, shocked.)

    There are reasons abortion “debates” in this country don’t get very far and one of them is a complete inability or unwillingness to present the position of the other side.

    TangoMan, while it is entirely possible (probable?) that some pro-lifers would answer those questions as you did, there is no reason that all of them would have to in order to be consistent. Here’s why:

    First, it is easy to step outside the questions and answer: pro-lifers can hardly hold people to account for an activity which has been legal. This answer assumes that pro-lifers would want to hold women who have abortions to account if they could; it is doubtful that this is the case–despite the portrayal of pro-life advocates as “teh EVIL woman-killers.” The questioner here (Molly) has forgotten that laws and penalties are made to serve society, not imposed automatically and inevitably.

    Second, it is possible to respond within the questions, and I do it merely to show what crappy questions they are.

    Regarding capital punishment or life imprisonment or any of the other attendant crimes listed, murder is not punishable in this country by capital punishment or life imprisonment (that’s why those arguments are strawmen). All jurisdictions that retain the death penalty require that the killing be of an especially heinous type. (Typically the killing must be: (1) of a law enforcement officer, fireman, or prison guard in the course of their duties; (2) accompanied by a second killing or more; or (3) accompanied by a violent felony such as rape, torture, or kidnapping.) Life imprisonments are similarly limited, especially in states where it is the harshest punishment.

    Regarding the “oh-so thought provoking” questions regarding smoking and unhealthy foods, why in the world would pro-lifers want to prosecute for homicide? (It may help if you remember that smoking and feeding children unhealthy foods are not punishable in any way–that’s why those questions are strawmen.)

    Similarly, the accidental death questions ignore the fact that accidental deaths are not typically litigated as criminal cases. They are much more likely to be litigated in civil courts as wrongful death cases. Since they are, of course, accidental, it would take some showing of negligence to get a favorable judgment. Also, someone would have to have standing to sue in civil court. If the parents’ actions negligently result in death, who would sue?

    I will admit that this creates an interesting thought experiment. As in questions 11 and 12 where frozen embryos are destroyed in potentially negligent circumstances, would it be possible for the parents to sue on a theory of wrongful death (under current law, I mean)?

    Finally, question 18 is similarly ridiculous. Merely having children does not entitle one to claim them as dependents for purposes of the IRS. Why would merely having frozen embryos do so?

    Molly: “Step up to the plate and have the courage of your convictions, “pro-life” people.”

    Indeed.

  4. Actually, given the low success rate of implantation, one could argue that she shouldn’t be allowed to carry any of them ever because that would be endangerment of a child.

    Women shouldn’t be the only people affected by the rhetoric. Let alone implantation, there’s also the incredibly low chances any two gametes will meet…

    Seriously, though, we need to go back to that “spill your seed, be unclean, you murderous bastards”. Stop the killing millions of potential children every day. Do your part. Don’t masturbate.

  5. Anyone going to post on the Men’s Rights case that’s in court today?

    Maybe if you tell us what the case is and in which court? There’s a lot of courts out there, y’know.

  6. People are allowed to save themselves instead of choosing to save another, even if by doing so the other perishes.

    A brilliant justification for abortion, being that pregnancy is the leading cause of death for young women worldwide.

  7. Gabriel, I think some of your points are dead on, especially about criminal and civil remedies for accidental deaths.

    However, I think your criticisms run thin here for a couple of reasons:

    Regarding capital punishment or life imprisonment or any of the other attendant crimes listed, murder is not punishable in this country by capital punishment or life imprisonment (that’s why those arguments are strawmen). All jurisdictions that retain the death penalty require that the killing be of an especially heinous type. (Typically the killing must be: (1) of a law enforcement officer, fireman, or prison guard in the course of their duties; (2) accompanied by a second killing or more; or (3) accompanied by a violent felony such as rape, torture, or kidnapping.) Life imprisonments are similarly limited, especially in states where it is the harshest punishment.

    It’s important to realize that some folk in power on the right, Tom Coburn frinstance, have actively called for the crime of abortion to be punishable by death. So, regarding your question of whether it is a crime of an “especially heinous” nature, there are prominent voices who call it just that. The death penalty question has been put on the table already by policymakers. It’s not like it’s some strawman being invented just for this purpose. Whether that’s a break from current law on the death penalty to me only reflects more poorly on those actually advocating enacting that break (albiet only for doctors) than those posing these abstracted, if imperfect, questions above.

  8. It’s important to realize that some folk in power on the right, Tom Coburn frinstance, have actively called for the crime of abortion to be punishable by death.

    Right, the former abortionist. Presumably he means “all abortions except the ones I performed.”

  9. Tex, I concede that advocates do resort to rhetoric like Dr. Coburn’s “I favor the death penalty for abortionists and other people who take life.” Of course a person should be held responsible for his words, but part of communication is understanding the difference between rhetorical puffery and serious discourse (Senator Clinton’s “plantation” and “police state” remarks come to mind).

    For example, Jill has noted several times since I’ve been reading here that Republicans are trying to kill women. This is quite a different claim than “Republican policies result in the deaths of women.” Because I rather doubt that Jill actually thinks Republicans go to bed at night thinking about new ways to kill women (or chain their uteri, or whatever etc.) I chalk it up to rhetoric.

    Chet, Dr. Coburn has performed two abortions both of which he believed he had no choice but to perform to save the life of the mother. He believed his Hippocratic Oath gave him no other options but to act. As has already been noted in this thread (with your approval, too) “People are allowed to save themselves instead of choosing to save another, even if by doing so the other perishes.”

    All states extend the claim of self-defense to defense-of-others. Presumably Dr. Coburn means “abortions not justified by the circumstances.” Moreover, I bet “the circumstances” include not just defense-of-others (saving the mother’s life) but also the current legal status of abortion. That is, I believe Dr. Coburn is not saying “Everyone who has performed an abortion should be put to death.” Rather, he is saying “I think the law should be changed so that abortionists can be put to death.” I doubt very much he would advocate for applying his proposed law retroactively (even if he could do so constitutionally).

  10. Chet:

    Right, the former abortionist. Presumably he means “all abortions except the ones I performed.

    And while I’m thinking about it, I love the constant cry of “Hypocrites” from the Left. As if there is no such thing as nuance (right, Senator Kerry?).

  11. Tex:

    It’s important to realize that some folk in power on the right, Tom Coburn frinstance, have actively called for the crime of abortion to be punishable by death.

    And one more thing, what do you mean by “actively called.” You make it sound like he’s done more than just said he favors capital punishment for abortionists.

  12. I like these questions. But my favorite question of all to pro-lifers, and the one that has trumped them, is, “If the woman can’t afford to raise the child, are you willing to pay to take care of it?”

    It doesn’t make much sense to me – those who value the fetus so much sure as heck aren’t willing to cough up the money it takes to nurture a genuine human being.

  13. Good set of questions, I enjoyed answering them. Just about all were ones I could answer in the negative.

    Not all people on the right-wing end of the political spectrum want to give fetuses social security numbers, but some of them do. Hopefully there will be enough checks and balances in place that those folks don’t end up turning the story of womens’ reproductive rights into something resembling “The Handmaid’s Tale”.

    I agree with Bill Clinton’s quote about abortions, that they should be safe, legal and rare. I also believe that the concept of “mandatory pregnancy” is something our country shouldn’t embrace. Certain aspects of the abortion argument come across as black-or-white, but I’m not sure if anybody from either the scientific or religious community can say with certainty at which point a fetus actually becomes “a child”.

    I also believe that putting down women who have had abortions is something probably done mostly by people who have not had abortions. I am a man, but I know from experiences that having an abortion can be a thoroughly gut-wrenching thing for a woman, something from which some of them never spiritually recover. It’s just my opinion, but I believe that white Christian males need so start doing a better job of listening to women and trying to understand their feelings in many areas, abortion included.

  14. By “actively” I mean he campaigned on it. He hasn’t introduced any bills to that effect, sure, but he made it a central reason to vote for him.

    That’s what makes it more important to me than just a mere expression of his opinion, a dubious retreat into the sphere of the personal. It was used as part of an attempt to persuade people to place him in high office, that he believes that abortionists should be killed.

    I’m all for treating puffery as a special sort of speech act, but I draw the line at calling for people’s deaths. Maybe it’s just me imposing my own sense of decorum and good taste, but I think it does no one any favors in this or pretty much any debate.

  15. Chet, Dr. Coburn has performed two abortions both of which he believed he had no choice but to perform to save the life of the mother.

    In fact, Coburn committed at least one abortion against the will and consent of the mother when no such risk to her life was present; later, he committed an act of Medicare fraud to conceal this unlawful abortion.

    As if there is no such thing as nuance

    I don’t see “death penalty for all abortionists” as a position that supports a great deal of nuance.

  16. I answered Molly’s questions (also as A.). Pepper, stop assuming that all pro-lifers are social conservatives who won’t cough up taxes for kids. I would love absolutely nothing more than for the government to stop wasting money on stupid military jets so they can wage their pissing-contest wars and start spending it on helping single moms with babies. I say as much in my answers to Molly’s questions. So far, she has not replied. Pro-choicers are always accusing me of not wanting to support the babies past birth. They’re wrong.

Comments are currently closed.